UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60355
CURTIS B. CURRY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT L. JOHNSON, Commissioner, Mississippi State Penitentiary; MIKE MOORE, Attorney General, State of Mississippi,
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi (2:96-CV-195-B-B)
March 26, 2001
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
The primary issue at hand is whether Curtis B. Curry was
represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to two indictments —
numbers 8225 and 8226 — on which he had not been arraigned. His
entire plea encompassed 11 counts, charged in seven indictments, on
five of which he had been arraigned, and, as noted, on two of
which, at issue here, he had not been arraigned.
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. In his federal habeas petition, Curry claimed: his plea was
not voluntary; the state trial court should have held a hearing on
his motion for post-conviction relief; the indictments were
defective; and he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The
district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation that
the petition be dismissed with prejudice. In addition, it denied
Curry a certificate of appealability (COA).
Our court, however, granted Curry a COA on “whether Curry was
represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to indictments
numbers 8225 and 8226 in that his retained counsel announced to the
court that he had not been retained to represent Curry in those
proceedings”. (Emphasis added.) The order further stated: “If
this question is answered in the negative, the other issues raised
by Curry regarding the voluntariness of his plea may become
relevant and should also be briefed”. (Emphasis added.) Curry was
cautioned, however, to “consider whether vacating the guilty pleas
on these other counts, leaving him open to the possibility of
reindictment, is in his best interest under Mississippi law”. (If
Curry were to succeed in this appeal and we were to vacate his
guilty plea, he could be tried on the original charges and be
subject to almost 400 years in prison without parole.)
We answer the first COA question in the affirmative: Curry
was represented by counsel when he pleaded guilty to indictments
8225 and 8226. Therefore, we do not reach the second COA question
2 — the voluntariness of the plea. The denial of habeas relief is
AFFIRMED.
I.
On 14 July 1993, Curry was to be tried on indictment number
8064 (sale of cocaine to an undercover law enforcement officer).
He previously had been arraigned on that indictment, as well as
four others (8030, 8065, 8066, 8089), for sale of cocaine to the
same undercover officer. He had not been arraigned on two other
indictments: number 8225 charged five counts of possession of a
controlled substance; number 8226, possession of a controlled
substance with intent to distribute.
That morning, before trial began, Curry’s attorney, Johnnie
Walls, requested a meeting with Curry, the district attorney (DA),
two assistant district attorneys, a city attorney, and the trial
judge. Walls informed the judge that he had “advised [Curry] that
he has a great chance of being convicted on every one of [the
various charges] because they involve, for the most part, direct
evidence[,] ... sale to an undercover sworn officer”. (Emphasis
added.) He explained:
The D.A. has made an offer to [Curry] to enter a plea on this cause, 8064, and the rest of them [the four other indictments on which Curry had been arraigned] to be combined, and to recommend a sixty-year sentence, a twenty- five thousand dollar fine, on each one, but this would be concurrent, assuming the Court would accept that recommendation, and that [Curry] would agree to not fight the
3 forfeiture of the property that the State has tried to forfeit that he owns.
... In addition to that, [Curry] is to be arraigned today on two other charges involving possession with intent that I do not represent him on. I don’t know anything about the evidence on those. But it’s my understanding that the D.A. is also willing to make those two charges part of the offer.
(Emphasis added.) Walls expressed his concern that
if [Curry] is convicted of five or six consecutive charges involving possession with intent or sale of cocaine, [] he will spend the rest of his natural life in prison without some kind of parole. Because if the Court decides to sentence him as a second and subsequent, under the second and subsequent statute under which he has been indicted, and if the Court gives him consecutive sentences, assuming that he is convicted on all of them, he could never get out of prison. And I think he needs to understand that from more than just me.
... I’m prepared right now to go out there and try his case. But I’m telling him on the record that I believe he’s going to be convicted of this charge.... [H]e tells me he’s not guilty.... I respect that.... I’m just, quite honestly, worried about him in the sense that I don’t think he’s making the right decision and I’m concerned about what he may say about me later that I didn’t tell him and I didn’t try to explain it....
I hate to say all this in front of the D.A. and on the record, but I think I’m obligated to do it in this instance. And I realize that the statements I’m making are somewhat putting me in conflict with him. But I don’t know what else to do. I just don’t feel comfortable walking into this courtroom feeling almost ninety-nine percent sure my client is going to be convicted. And I’m telling him that and he won’t listen to me.
4 ... I want the record to reflect ... [and] I want him to at least acknowledge that we’ve told him these things that I’ve just said, we’ve discussed the evidence with him, we’ve discussed his possible defenses, and I’ve told him what his rights are.
(Emphasis added.)
The judge complimented Walls’ candor with the court and his
client, and asked Curry if he understood what his lawyer had just
said. Curry affirmed that he did. (Curry has a Master’s degree in
math and taught in the Mississippi public schools for 16 years.)
The judge sought to clarify the number of years to which Curry
could be sentenced as a second and subsequent offender, asking “So
we’re talking about sixty times five cases?”2 The following
colloquy ensued:
[WALLS]: [W]hat bothers me ... is not the total number of years. If he were sentenced to three hundred years
2 Curry had a prior conviction for possession of marijuana.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 41-29-142, any person convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this article may be imprisoned for a term up to twice the term otherwise authorized, fined an amount up to twice that otherwise authorized, or both.
For purposes of this section, an offense is considered a second or subsequent offense, if, prior to his conviction of the offense, the offender has at any time been convicted under this article or under any statute of the United States or of any state relating to narcotic drugs, marihuana, depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic drugs.
MISS. CODE ANN. § 41-29-147 (1972).
5 [concurrently], under the ... present statute, I think he would still be eligible for parole after he serves ten. But if he happens to get consecutive sentences, then he has to serve ten on each one before he’s eligible for parole under the statute.
And ... I’ve explained that to him ... if he’s tried consecutively, as the D.A. has promised to do, then he may end up as an habitual offender which means he gets no parole on any of them....[3]
[DA]: Your Honor, we have indicated [] to the Defense, that we’re going to review these in the event that we do convict again, and with an eye toward re-indicting as habitual under 99-19-81. And that would, under one conviction of that, under that indictment there, he would have to serve sixty years without parole under one conviction there for sale. And we have indicated that to them, too.
[COURT]: So you wouldn’t need but one conviction out of — [DA]: — That’s right.
3 The habitual offender statute provides:
Every person convicted in this state of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution, whether in this state or elsewhere, shall be sentenced to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for such felony, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation.
MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-19-81 (1972) (emphasis added).
6 [COURT]: — what you’ve got left in order to get sixty years without parole?
[DA]: Without parole. And that’s what we were fully intending to do and we did advise Defense attorney of that. We did not do that under the circumstances now because he only has one conviction now. But after another conviction he would be [a] legitimate habitual offender under that section.
...
[COURT]: So ... if you got a conviction today there’s still six more?
So all you would need would be one out of six to get another sixty years without probation or parole?
[DA]: That’s right.
[COURT]: And that sentence would be mandatory.
The law says I would have to give sixty years without probation or parole.
[WALLS]: That’s right....
[COURT]: Well, surely the District Attorney, out of six cases, will get at least one conviction.
[CURRY]: Can I ask you a question?
Curry and Walls conferred off the record. Curry then asked
the DA if it was too late to accept the plea offer. The DA stated
7 that he would make his previous recommendation. Walls and Curry
again conferred off the record, subsequent to Walls’ stating:
[S]ince we’re on the record I want to make sure also that Mr. Curry is not feeling pressured by what I did to change your mind. Because if you change your mind, I want you to change your mind because you feel that that’s what you want to do, based on the advice you’ve been given and what you think is best for you. I mean I want you to understand that you have me in a real precarious position. And I’m saying it on the record so everybody can see my feelings about it.
(Emphasis added.) Following a nearly 20-minute recess, Curry
stated: “I’m going to take the plea bargain”.
The court then turned to the two indictments for which Curry
had not been arraigned: 8225 (five counts of possession), and 8226
(sale of cocaine). Walls indicated that he had not been retained
to represent Curry on those charges.
[COURT]: But you may, if you wish, represent him for the purpose of entering a plea. Or do you wish the indictments to be read?
[Curry and Walls conferred]
[WALLS]: ... [I]f Mr. Curry is read these indictments and he understands the charges in them and he pleads guilty to these, I have no problem standing with him to do that. But I just want the record to be clear that I have not investigated these and I don’t know the facts of these and he understands that.
But because they are charges that will be pending, left alone out there, that have the
8 potential effect of doing the same thing that all these other charges do, and even greater, it would be my recommendation, if he’s guilty of them, to accept that offer and to allow the D.A. to include these along with the other charges.
[COURT]: It would certainly be in his best interest to have [them] included....
(Emphasis added.) At Walls’ request, the DA then read indictment
8225 to Curry.
Curry conferred with Walls. Thereafter, on the record, Walls
explained Curry’s contention: in 8225, the drugs which counts I,
II, III, and V alleged Curry possessed — meperidine, hydrocodone,
oxycodone, and butalbital (count IV, as the court noted, charged
possession of cocaine) — involved prescription medications. Walls
stated he did not know how to counsel Curry on this defense because
he had not investigated the factual bases for the charges. The
court took a brief recess while the DA checked into the
allegations.
The record does not reflect the outcome of the DA’s inquiry;
but, it does show that, after the recess and after further
conferring with Walls, Curry pled guilty to all five counts of
indictment 8225 and, after it was read by the DA, to the single
count in indictment 8226. Curry stated: he understood the charges
in all seven indictments (arraigned and unarraigned) and had
committed all of the crimes charged in those indictments.
9 After the DA made his sentencing recommendation, the court
informed Curry of the maximum sentence, and Curry affirmed that he
understood he could receive a sentence of 386 years, part of which
could be without parole if he were reindicted and sentenced as a
habitual offender. The judge explained to Curry the rights he
waived by entering the plea, and Curry affirmatively stated that he
waived them. Furthermore, Curry expressed his satisfaction with
the services of his attorney, and stated: Walls had not threatened
him in any way; and Walls had properly represented him during all
stages of the case.
The court sentenced Curry to six terms of 60 years (for 8030,
8064, 8065, 8066, 8089, and 8226), four terms of six years (for
counts I to IV of 8225), and one term of two years (for count V of
8225), with all sentences to run concurrently with each other and
consecutively with an earlier conviction and sentence, which he was
then serving. The court also ordered him, inter alia, to pay a
fine of $25,000 within one year of his release from custody. In
sum, Curry’s sentence for a total of 11 counts in seven
indictments, with all time concurrent, was for 60 years, following
completion of his earlier sentence; and he was eligible for parole.
Curry’s motion for post-conviction relief was denied, and the
Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the denial. See Curry v. State,
691 So. 2d 1021 (Miss. 1996) (unpublished). As noted, Curry’s
10 federal habeas claims were denied as well. Curry v. Anderson, No.
2:96-cv-195-B-B (N.D. Miss. 7 May 1999) (unpublished).
II.
Pursuant to the COA, we first consider whether Curry received
effective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty to indictments
8225 and 8226. Again, because we conclude he did, we do not reach
the contingent second issue, that of voluntariness.
A.
An ineffective assistance of counsel claim presents mixed
questions of law and fact; therefore, we review de novo the
district court’s ruling. See, e.g., Pratt v. Cain, 142 F.3d 226,
230 (5th Cir. 1998). As the magistrate judge determined in his
report and recommendation, the state court did not conduct a merits
review of the claim; therefore, AEDPA’s requirement that federal
habeas courts honor state courts’ reasonable conclusions regarding
the constitutional effectiveness of counsel does not apply. See
Jones v. Jones, 163 F.3d 285, 299-300 (5th Cir. 1998), cert.
denied, 528 U.S. 895 (1999).
Needless to say, a plea hearing is a critical stage of the
prosecution at which the Constitution guarantees the right to
counsel. See Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 54 (1961) (state
proceeding at which plea is entered is critical stage); Reed v.
United States, 354 F.2d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 1965) (“One of the most
precious applications of the Sixth Amendment may well be in
11 affording counsel to advise a defendant concerning whether he
should enter a plea of guilty.”).
The first question is whether Walls was, in fact, appointed
counsel for indictments 8225 and 8226; if so, the second is whether
he, in fact, provided representation on those indictments; and, if
so, the third, and final, question is whether that representation
was effective.
1.
As explained, when the court first mentioned indictments 8225
and 8226, Walls advised he did not represent Curry on them.
However, the court appointed Walls for the purpose of entering a
plea. Walls accepted the appointment. Curry, who felt free to
interject at other points in the hearing, did not object; and,
after entering the plea, Curry affirmed his belief that Walls had
given good advice about entering the plea and had properly
represented him at all stages of the case in which he was involved.
On appeal, Curry objects to Walls’ representation, in that he
(Curry) did not expressly consent to the appointment. However,
Curry impliedly consented to it by repeatedly conferring with Walls
about the plea. Cf. People v. Assenato, 629 N.E.2d 166, 169, 257
Ill. App. 3d 1026, 1029 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (“Where a defendant
does not object to his counsel’s representation, he is deemed to
have acquiesced in that representation.” (emphasis added)).
12 Furthermore, even if Curry had objected to Walls’
representation, whether to appoint a different lawyer would have
been in the court’s discretion. For example, as stated in United
States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973):
Although an indigent criminal defendant has a right to be represented by counsel, he does not have a right to ... demand a different appointed lawyer except for good cause. Unless a Sixth Amendment violation is shown, whether to appoint a different lawyer for an indigent criminal defendant who expresses dissatisfaction with his court-appointed counsel is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.
(emphasis added; citation omitted).
It does not appear that Curry was indigent. In any event, as
stated, he did not object to Walls’ being appointed for numbers
8225 and 8226. Moreover, “[f]or an attorney to render effective
and competent representation there is no requirement of a
ceremonial court appointment or a formal contract between attorney
and client”. Collins v. Green, 505 F.2d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1974)
(emphasis added).
2.
“The Constitution’s guarantee of assistance of counsel cannot
be satisfied by mere formal appointment”, Avery v. Alabama, 308
U.S. 444, 446 (1940) (emphasis added); but, Walls’ representation
was more than a mere formality. Cf. United States v. Cronic, 466
U.S. 648, 654 (1984) (“The [Sixth] Amendment requires not merely
13 the provision of counsel to the accused, but ‘Assistance,’ which is
to be ‘for his defen[s]e.’”). The hearing transcript reflects
that, between the time the court appointed Walls to represent Curry
on indictments 8225 and 8226 and Curry took the oath to enter the
guilty plea, Curry conferred with Walls on six separate occasions.
After one such conference, Walls requested a discussion off
the record; when they went back on the record, Walls explained he
had simply wanted to clarify that he had not been retained on those
two indictments and had not investigated them, but would represent
Curry if he was read the indictments and understood the charges.
After another conference between Walls and Curry, Walls
explained to the court that Curry claimed a defense to four of the
five counts in indictment 8225 (each count except possession of
cocaine), in that Curry had a medical prescription; Walls expressed
concern that he did not know how to advise Curry on this defense.
This resulted in a brief investigation by the DA, during which the
court was in recess. As soon as the recess ended, Curry agreed to
plead guilty to all five counts. What the investigation revealed
is not evident in the record; but, whatever occurred apparently
satisfied Walls’ concern that he did not know how to advise Curry,
persuaded Curry to make the plea, and sufficed to allay the judge’s
concerns that prompted him to ask the DA to inquire further into
the defense.
14 Walls did not formally investigate the charges; but, by
repeatedly conferring with Curry, he had the opportunity to learn
about the charges and factual background. Cf. Avery, 308 U.S. at
446 (“[T]he denial of opportunity for appointed counsel to confer,
to consult with the accused and to prepare his defense, could
convert the appointment of counsel into a sham and nothing more
than a formal compliance with the Constitution’s requirement that
an accused be given assistance of counsel.” (footnote omitted)).
Walls worked on Curry’s behalf, insisting the indictments be read
to Curry and ensuring that the defense Curry suggested was
addressed. Therefore, as appointed counsel, Walls did actively
represent Curry.
3.
Because Walls was appointed counsel and acted on Curry’s
behalf, this case does not fall within Cronic’s framework. Cronic,
466 U.S. at 658-62 (considering cases in which ineffectiveness of
counsel can be presumed). Even though Curry did not explicitly
accept Walls’ appointment, and merely did so implicitly by not so
objecting, he cannot assert “the complete denial of counsel ... at
a critical stage of his trial”. Id. at 659. Nor can he maintain
“counsel entirely fail[ed] to subject the prosecution’s case to
meaningful adversarial testing”, id.; Walls prompted an inquiry
into the defense that Curry obtained certain drugs through medical
prescriptions.
15 Therefore, we turn to Strickland v. United States, inquiring
whether counsel’s performance was deficient and, if so, whether
that deficient performance prejudiced the defense. See 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58 (1985)
(applying two-prong Strickland test to challenge to guilty plea).
In the context of a guilty plea, “[p]rejudice occurs if there
is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors,
[defendant] would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted
on going to trial”. United States v. Smith, 844 F.2d 203, 209 (5th
Cir. 1988) (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted); see
Hill, 474 U.S. at 59.
In many guilty plea cases, the “prejudice” inquiry will closely resemble the inquiry engaged in by courts reviewing ineffective-assistance challenges to convictions obtained through a trial. For example, where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to investigate or discover potentially exculpatory evidence, the determination whether the error “prejudiced” the defendant by causing him to plead guilty rather than go to trial will depend on the likelihood that discovery of the evidence would have led counsel to change his recommendation as to the plea. This assessment, in turn, will depend in large part on a prediction whether the evidence likely would have changed the outcome of a trial.
Id.
Curry maintains Walls’ performance was deficient because, if
Walls had investigated: he would have found Curry was innocent, in
that the drugs had been prescribed for him; it is doubtful he would
16 have encouraged Curry then to enter a plea. However, even if Walls
had concluded Curry was probably innocent, he still may have
counseled him to plead guilty, rather than risk the dire
consequences of a trial-conviction. If Curry had chosen not to
plead guilty to indictments 8225 and 8226, Curry could have been
tried for the six counts as a subsequent offender, and possibly as
a habitual offender, based on Curry’s previous pleas and sentences
on the five indictments for the sale of cocaine; he then would have
faced a possible additional sentence of up to 86 years without
parole.4
Clearly, Curry was not prejudiced by Walls’ representation on
the two unarraigned counts. Walls had successfully negotiated a
plea encompassing the five indictments on which Curry had been
arraigned. Then, at no additional penalty to Curry, the charges in
4 At the plea hearing, Curry affirmed he had committed the charges and he did not claim innocence:
[COURT]: Do you understand that I will not accept your plea of guilty if you claim that you are innocent?
[CURRY]: Yes, sir.
[COURT]: ... [D]o you understand that by pleading guilty you’re admitting that you did in fact commit the crimes stated in the indictments?
17 the two unarraigned indictments were brought into the plea. Cf.
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691 (“An error by counsel, even if
professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the
judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the
judgment.”(emphasis added)). Even if Curry had gone to trial on
indictments 8225 and 8226 and had not been convicted, he still
would have faced the sentence that resulted from pleading guilty on
the charges in the other indictments. Therefore, going to trial
could not have decreased his sentence but would have simply risked
lengthy imprisonment (for the rest of his life; he was 41 at
sentencing) without parole.
Because Curry has not shown prejudice, we need not consider
deficient performance vel non. But, in the alternative, Curry
fails on that prong as well; restated, he has not shown Walls’
performance was deficient. The adequacy of Walls’ efforts “is
illuminated by the absence of any indication ... that [Walls] could
have done more had additional time [for investigation] been
granted”. Avery, 308 U.S. at 452; cf. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 691
(“[A] particular decision not to investigate must be directly
assessed for reasonableness in all the circumstances, applying a
heavy measure of deference to counsel’s judgments.” (emphasis
added)). There is no indication that Walls would have uncovered
evidence in addition to that which Curry could have brought to his
attention in their various conferences during the plea hearing.
18 His conduct did not fall “below an objective standard of
reasonableness” or outside “the range of competence demanded of
attorneys in criminal cases”. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88.
Accordingly, Curry was represented by counsel in his pleas to
indictments 8225 and 8226, and his counsel rendered effective
assistance by having these two additional indictments encompassed
in the plea agreement with the original five on which he had been
retained to represent Curry.
B.
As stated supra, because we conclude that Curry was
represented by counsel in pleading guilty to the charges in
indictments 8225 and 8226, we do not reach whether his pleas were
voluntary.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the denial of habeas relief is